Authors: U.S. Office of Technology Assessment

Date of Publication:  August 1979

Sponsoring Agency:  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce

Performing Organization:  U.S. Office of Technology Assessment

Report No:

Abstract:

This report, “Rail Safety: A U.S.-Canadian Comparison, ” was undertaken by the Office of Technology Assessment at the request of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives.

In conducting the analysis, OTA utilized information and data generated in the previous OTA Evaluation of Railroad Safety published in May 1978, and additional information on U.S. rail safety provided by Government, industry, and labor sources. Data, information, and assistance regarding Canadian railroad safety was provided by the Canadian Transport Commission, Labour Canada, the Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway, the Canadian National Railway (CN), and the Canadian Railway Labour Association.

The study was conducted by OTA staff with the contractual assistance of the Newman and Hermanson Company, Mr. Ralph Hoar as editor, and his. Marese Miles as typist. Special assistance was provided by Jim Leach and Joel Miller within OTA. Advice and assistance was provided by a U.S. advisory panel comprised of representatives from the Federal Railroad Administration, the Association of American Railroads, the Railway Labor Executives Association, the Union Pacific Railroad, and Carnegie Mellon University. In addition, numerous other persons
provided valuable insight and information regarding safety for the study effort. A detailed list of the persons interviewed is included in appendix A.

This study sought to give a general overview of the similarities and differences between the U.S. and Canadian rail systems, Government structures, accident and casualty pictures, and rail safety policies and programs. Time and data limitations did not permit detailed comparisons of such items as operational data and codes, specific accident comparisons, Government economic policies, and rail resource allocations.
 

No. of Pages:  107